Hey {{ subscriber.first_name | default: “friend” }},
“Why Threads?” was a question I got from a Council member when I announced I would do a 30-day group challenge for it. I think the answer deserves a bit more real estate. Whether or not you are on Threads or plan to be, this is a good primer on what social media networks can do for you.
Back in early 2023, I wrote a piece on the rise and fall of social media networks. In case you don’t want to read it all, here’s the TL;DR:
So far, every platform has gone through this, without fail. I’m sure Threads will follow the same model, in pure Meta tradition.
Yet, right now, Threads is good to the users and nearing bad to the users so they can be good to the advertisers. I’ll tell you why in a second, after a quick message from today’s partner, THE authority on online education. If you’ve ever had a course that didn’t sell as well as expected, take the quiz below. I know it’s been eye-opening for me and for many people I know.
📣 Brought to you by 📣
Cut the Crap Newsletter
When course sales slow down, the gurus are real quick to tell you that you need 101 different tweaks and changes to your marketing. But don’t touch that keyboard yet.
It might not be the marketing; it might actually be your curriculum design. Before you start tearing things apart, this 6-minute quiz will tell you the likely culprit.
Find out how to fix your course and stop second-guessing yourself.
Want your name up here? Reserve your slot! (Sold out until September)
When it first launched in 2023, joining Threads felt like volunteering to furnish an empty nightclub.
Yes, millions of people had technically created accounts. Most had arrived through Instagram, looked around, posted something about how delightfully calm it was compared with Twitter, and then disappeared to the safety of Instagram reels.
That has changed.
Let’s look at the numbers on Threads
Threads reached 500 million monthly active users in June 2026. That figure comes from Meta, so we should read it with the usual corporate-reporting eyebrow raised. Monthly active users can include people whose commitment to a platform consists of opening it once while trapped in a supermarket queue.
Still, half a billion monthly users is too large to dismiss as an abandoned Meta side quest (remember the Metaverse?).
In terms of daily active users (DAU), Meta reported 150 million by late 2025; however, third‑party data (Similarweb tracked by TechCrunch) shows ~141.5–147 million daily mobile users in early–mid 2026, edging past X/Twitter on mobile DAU.
Threads went from ~175M MAU (mid‑2024) → 350M (Q1 2025) → 400M (Aug 2025) → 500M (June 2026), making it Meta’s fastest app to reach that scale.
This means that Threads now has real, global reach and is one of the few text‑first platforms still growing quickly. However, “monthly active” is a loose metric; daily engagement and US‑specific DAU still lag X/Twitter in some markets.
More interestingly, Threads has reached what I think is the weirdly perfect stage of a social platform.
It’s large enough to matter. It still feels loose enough for people without enormous audiences to get discovered. And it has finally built enough measurement and business infrastructure for us to judge whether our effort is producing anything beyond a pleasant trickle of dopamine.
That combination rarely lasts.
The gap between “too early” and “everyone has ruined it”
Every social platform goes through stages; we’ve already talked about that. Platforms like Clubhouse, for instance, never got out of their crib, despite the initial enthusiasm. And do you remember Google+? Yeah, that was a thing too.
You might also remember the pioneers of LinkedIn, the people who said “hey, is this thing on?”, started posting when everyone else was just polishing their resumes in there, and built empires out of it.
This is the case for pioneers in general, from the world’s first colonists to the digital personas we see today.
Threads is smack in the middle of this gap
Make no mistake, most of the LinkedIn and X bros are on Threads too. But the platform still feels small and quaint enough to make a dent.
I constantly see people genuinely ask for advice and also replies that offer it non-performatively. I truly missed that.
My research has revealed a few interesting things:
- The reach lottery is still favorable to the users and relatively low-cost. A post can travel far and wide, well beyond your bubble — and it happens far more frequently than on the older platforms.
- Distribution is AI-based (as it is everywhere else) BUT, since Meta still wants more users on Threads, they’re kinder to them.
- If you’re also on Instagram, Threads is a great sidekick. I’ve recently advised a client to use Threads as a top-of-the-funnel platform and send people to Instagram for actual conversions (Threads is not great at generating link traffic, but this workaround is very lucrative).
- Direct sales are possible, especially if you already have a reputation from elsewhere. I sold multiple things via Threads, and it always felt almost too easy. Anecdotally, I know at least four other people who have done the same.
- Threads rewards participation: the more time you spend answering comments (to your own posts), the better your reach. That used to be the case on LinkedIn too, but not anymore.
- The B2B crowd is still arriving (if that’s you, I’d seriously consider Threads sooner rather than later): according to Sprout Social’s 2025 marketer survey, 64% of B2C brands were already posting on Threads, compared with only 19% of B2B brands. Another 31% of B2B marketers said they planned to establish a presence.
A new platform is always a bet
Some of the early adopters of LinkedIn built empires out of it; none of the early Clubhouse adopters can credit the platform with the same thing, though.
This is why I’m treating the 30-day Threads challenge as an experiment. I know it will not work for everyone — heck, even I might decide to drop it after the challenge. Still, I think that it’s worth at least an experiment for a certain category of people in particular.
Threads is great for people whose raw material is thinking
Every channel charges an entry fee.
YouTube demands video, audio, editing, thumbnails, and the emotional resilience to watch your own face say the same sentence twelve times. Instagram usually wants visuals. LinkedIn increasingly encourages documents, images, video, newsletters, and personal stories polished until they gleam like a freshly waxed coupe.
Threads asks for a thought.
You can publish a compact argument, an observation, an unfinished idea, a question, a reply, or a useful disagreement. You can test five angles without designing five assets and without requesting a production budget from the CFO, who is unfortunately also you.
This makes Threads especially interesting for writers, consultants, coaches, strategists, and other experts whose primary asset is how they think.
If you’re on another text-based platform or Instagram, it’s even better.
Listen, I realize that this sounds like Meta’s endorsing Strategic AF (they’re not). And, if you’ve been reading this newsletter for a while, you know I never make blanket recommendations.
So, should you invest time in Threads?
Maybe.
Any definitive answer given before examining your audience, offer, strengths, and current marketing system would be algorithmic astrology and we don’t do that shit here.
Here’s how I’d think about it:
- Do you have a single social media platform you depend on? If so, it might be time to add another one (this doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be Threads).
- Do you enjoy creating short text-based content?
- Are you already on Instagram?
- Do you have the bandwidth for another platform right now (assume you’ll need 30-60 mins per day or at least 3 times a week)?
- Do your current platforms feel low on engagement and, more importantly, actual business results?
- Are you up for a low-lift experiment?
If you answered “yes” to two or more of the questions above, then it’s the right time for you to try Threads. And if you’re already on Threads, I’d love to know how it’s working for you, so reply and let me know, please!
